What mothers REALLY want for Mother's Day

Mothers throughout the country will be receiving flowers, candy and gifts from their loved ones on Mother's Day. But Terry Neese, a Distinguished Fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, said there are much better Mother's Day gifts that can be given — ones that have a lasting impact.

"I'm all for treating our moms to nice dinners and a pretty bouquet," Neese said. "But what our moms really want is time and money. It's about making changes in federal law so mothers can keep more of their hard-earned cash in their pocketbooks."

Neese has developed a list of Mother's Day gifts that require less government involvement and create more economic freedom:

•1.    Portable health and retirement benefits… so mothers aren't penalized when they switch jobs

•2.    A level playing field under tax law… so that stay-at-home moms who save for retirement, purchase health insurance, long-term insurance, day care, etc., receive just as much tax relief as people who obtain these benefits at work

•3.    New rules regarding employer-provided benefits… so mothers can freely choose between taxable wages and non-taxed benefits, selecting the combination that best meets their family's needs

•4.    Time… so mothers can work 80 hours over a two-week period in any combination (by changing the 1938 Federal Labor Standards Act)

•5.    Better treatment under Social Security… so shared earnings between spouses could easily be applied to a new system of personal retirement accounts (where payroll tax contributions are divided like community property)

•6.    A new approach to the taxation of Social Security benefits (for grandma)… so marginal tax rates are not raised and there is no earnings penalty for seniors who work.

•7.    The ability to protect assets by buying long-term care insurance… so Medicaid can be utilized only for catastrophic costs

•8.    Personal employment accounts… so moms have more control and ownership, while having unemployment protection. Personal employment accounts could be used during periods of unemployment and any unused funds could add to retirement incomes.

•9.    A fairer tax system for two-earner couples… so both spouses are able to file completely separate tax returns without penalty. Mothers and grandmothers also want to bury the estate tax for life.

•10.  Affordable health care… so women and families can feel secure. Small businesses should be allowed to band together across state lines, creating an economy of scale, as they seek to purchase reasonably priced health insurance. 

Recently, this bipartisan article appeared in the Washington, DC Roll Call.  I wanted to share it with you.  Although, it does not mention our key issues:  portable benefits, flexible benefits, flexible workplaces, tax fairness and health care for small businesses; we are working with both sides of the aisle to move these issues forward!  We appreciate Congresswoman Capps and Congresswoman McMorris Rodgers's hard work on issues that impact women, families and small business.

March 12, 2008

By Reps. Lois Capps and Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Special to Roll Call

The Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues is celebrating its 31st anniversary this week, with a gala tonight honoring its leaders. As we observe this significant milestone, it's important to recognize what a remarkable time this is for American women and pause to appreciate how far we have come as women both in Congress and across the country.

Consider this: Just 87 years after American women received the right to vote in federal elections, women now are expected to cast more than half of the votes in the upcoming 2008 election. This high level of participation shouldn't surprise anyone. Already, women manage more than half of household incomes, control more than half the money in the New York Stock Exchange and make most of the health care decisions in the family, all while trying to balance the demands of work and family life.

This enhanced influence of women in all aspects of American life is reflected in the increased power of women in Congress. Most notably, we saw the inauguration of the first female Speaker last year. We also have 73 women serving in the House of Representatives. And 35 House committees and subcommittees are chaired by women or have female ranking members.

This is a far cry from 31 years ago when the Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues was founded. At that time, women in the House didn't enjoy the same amount of influence and respect in the halls of Congress as they do today. There were far fewer female Members, and their male colleagues largely wrote them off. Infamously, one of our founding Members - then-Rep. Patricia Schroeder (D-Colo.) - was forced to share a seat, literally, on the Armed Services Committee. This underscored the larger fight facing women to gain a seat at the tables of power in Congress and across the country.

In the face of this adversity, the women of Congress joined together across party lines to form the Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues. We found that, by uniting as women, we can often transcend the traditional boundaries of partisan politics and advance our shared agenda of addressing issues important to women and families.

In 2007, working together, we passed legislation that protected genetic information nondiscrimination, highlighted International Women's Day, honored the important role the Girl Scouts play in helping young girls, recognized the important contributions of women serving in the military and celebrated the anniversary of Title IX. Additionally, we continued to bring attention to important women's health issues such as breast cancer and cervical cancer.

Family and social burdens come with an aging population and comparatively fewer young workers. There is virtually no legal restriction on the ability of people to acquire long-term care insurance with pretax dollars at work. For people who must buy insurance outside the workplace, however, tax breaks are stingier.            

Because Medicare does not cover most long-term care, seniors must provide for their own needs, or exhaust their assets to qualify for Medicaid.

Because women are more than twice as likely as men to experience a long stint in a nursing home, this is a "women's issue/human rights issue."

Four states allow seniors to protect assets against Medicaid by buying insurance, but Congress has prevented similar arrangements in the other 46 states.

Why can't we have a level playing field?  People who save for retirement, purchase health insurance, long-term care insurance and/or day care should receive just as much tax relief as people who obtain those benefits at work!

And what about portable health and retirement benefits, so that people are not penalized when they switch jobs?

Why can't everyone protect assets by buying long-term care insurance, using Medicaid only for catastrophic costs?

Beyond expressions of sympathy or empathy, what are the respective positions of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John McCain on these issues?

You tell me…

Americans say they are tired of bickering, and those who divide our country with partisan dialogue. Yet Hillary Clinton is still in the presidential race, in part because of hard-hitting advertisements in the Ohio and Texas primaries.

Despite this, it's hard to see how Clinton can get the nomination. Barack Obama is still in the driver's seat in their party, and that's interesting. In the end, the two hopefuls with the most consistent record of appealing to voters in both parties will most likely carry their respective banners in November - Obama and Republican John McCain.

I'm not yet counting out Hillary, but the numbers lead me to ask: Barack Obama and John McCain - who would be the strongest? I'll put my bet on whichever one does the best job of appealing to small business owners and to working women.

National policy is not keeping up with the evolution of the needs of American workers and small businesses.  Many small business owners would like to provide Fortune 500 benefits to employees, including quality health care.

Corporate America and Labor Unions can get insurance across state lines with economy of scale and lower costs. Why can't small business owners get the same breaks as large corporations and labor unions?

Can't this be fixed?

Why are small business owners being discriminated against?

What are the positions of the two apparent nominees on this issue?

Small business owners need help now. Who will provide that help? Barack or John? Or, does Hillary have answers dramatic enough to get her the nomination, after all? You tell me…

February 4, 2008

For Immediate Release Contact: Terry Neese, 405-942-8551

Terry Neese Featured on WomenEntrepreneur.com

Entrepreneur's Advice Featured on Prestigious Website

Terry Neese, founder of a personnel services company in Oklahoma City, was featured on the WomenEntrepreneur.com website on January 29th. Her quote from The Woman's Advantage Calendar for that date was displayed on the top right corner of the page.

Mary Cantando, Growth Expert of The Woman's Advantage in North Carolina, said that Neese's advice was prominently featured on the WomenEntrepreneur.com site.

"Terry Neese's quote was selected because it was powerful yet easy to understand. Her idea is relevant to almost every woman in business today." says Cantando. "Women business owners and those who dream of starting a business will learn so much from Terry Neese's advice."

Neese's calendar quote provides seemingly common sense counsel that is actually often ignored: "If you run a buisness and are not involved in politics, then politics will run your business."

Neese is a Distinguished Fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, with offices in Dallas, Texas and Washington, D.C. She is a co-founder of Women Impacting Public Policy, and is also CEO of the Insitutute for Economic Empowerment of Women, assisting women in the developing world in learning entrepreneurial skills. The quotation from Neese was eatured on the WomenEntrepreneur.com website on January 29 and was printed as part of the Woman's Advantage Calendar 2008, which provides daily advice on key business issues including: organization, promotion, sales, and human resources.

Mary Cantando is a nationally-recognized expert on women business owners. She is the developer of the successful Woman's Advantage line of products, geared specifically to women entrepreneurs. As a member of the National Speakers' Association, Cantando provides keynotes and workshops for women who want to grow their businesses.

The Woman's Advantage is a line of information products including books, workbooks, CDs and calendars designed exclusively for successful women business owners. The Woman's Advantage Calendar provides sound bites of advice on key business issues including: organization, promotion, sales, and human resources. For more information, call 919-841-0401 or visit http://www.womansadvantage.biz/

After Super Tuesday has come and gone, I still don't know where the presidential hopefuls put working women in their hierarchy of targeted constituencies. Women make up 54% of the electorate and make MOST spending decisions for American families and millions of small businesses, yet tax laws, labor laws and a host of other institutions are still designed from top-to-bottom for an Ozzie and Harriet lifestyle. I don't say this to marginalize the life many of our grandparents and parents lived. It's merely a direct observation.

Our major economic institutions reward families with a full-time worker and a stay-at-home spouse, and by comparison punish every other arrangement. The labor market does not provide women with the flexibility we need for the varied lifestyles we live in the 21^st century.

All I'm saying is that our nation's employee benefit system needs to be reformed in order to meet the needs of women today. We all know that women are more likely to work part-time so that they can look after children or elderly family members. So, women are less likely to ever qualify for employer-provided benefits. Women move from job to job and in and out of the labor market more often than men; therefore, women are more likely to be burdened by employee benefit programs that penalize job switching.

Why can't we have flexible employee benefit systems that make it easier for dual-earner couples to obtain higher wages rather than unneeded, duplicate benefits, and for part-time workers to accept lower wages in return for more valuable health and retirement benefits?

Why can't we have flexibility in labor law, making it easier for workers, especially parents with young children and caregivers for elderly parents, to choose alternatives to the traditional 40-hour work week?

Why can't the system be flexible to enough to reflect the ways people actually live today, rather than the way they lived 50 years ago?

Why can't we have a system in which ALL benefits programs are "portable" — following the worker wherever she goes in the modern, dynamic market?

Have the "big four" presidential candidates - Hillary, Obama, John, and Mike - even talked about such things?

Why can't they?

 You tell me…

Testimony for Submission to the
Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pension Committee
Weathering the Economic Storm:
Helping Working Families in Troubling Times

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am Terry Neese, Distinguished Fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, a nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy research organization dedicated to developing and promoting private alternatives to government regulation and control, solving problems by relying on the strength of the competitive, entrepreneurial private sector.  I welcome the opportunity to share my views in writing regarding HR 3963. 

This is a critical time in our nation. It's only January, and people are already tired of the 2008 presidential campaign. In fact, only 20% of voters bothered to vote in the Michigan primary.

What can we do about it? Well, I am convinced that one person joining together with the voice of many can make a difference.

As Distinguished Fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, I am focusing  on real kitchen table issues making an impact on women, families, businesses and entrepreneurs. We are focused on the economic impact of public policies on the lives of women, businesses and entrepreneurs. That's our agenda, simply put.

I can't cover all of our concerns in this testimony; but I can raise major concerns and ask for your help to make life better.

The time has come to examine why our government continues to "leave women behind." It is time to examine how a variety of our institutions came about in an age when most women did not work outside the home, and how they have not kept pace with our modern world.

Most of these laws I am talking about were written in the 1930's. Women rarely worked outside the home. It merely describes the lives of most of us here to say that the single most important economic and sociological change in our society in the past 60 years has been the entry of women into the labor market:

• Between 1950 and 2000 the labor force participation rate of women between 25 and 55 years of age more than doubled; today, more than 75 percent of these women are in the labor market.
• Less than 12 percent of mothers with children under 6 were in the labor force in 1950; today, more than 60 percent are working.
• These changes have had a major impact on family life. For example:
• In 1940, two-thirds of all working households were one wage-earner and a stay-at-home spouse; today about one in five households fit that pattern.
• Dual-earner families - with both spouses in the labor market - now constitute almost two-thirds of all married couples.

Despite these remarkable changes, public policy and major institutions have never kept pace.

Tax law, labor law and a host of other institutions are still designed from top-to-bottom for an Ozzie and Harriet lifestyle. I don't say this to marginalize the life many of our grandparents and parents lived. It's merely a direct observation. Our major economic institutions - including tax law, labor law, and employee benefits law, as well as Social Security, and retirement policies - reward families with a full-time worker and a stay-at-home spouse and by comparison punish every other arrangement.

Women who work for modest wages outside the home pay effective tax rates higher than Bill Gates! Consider that hypothetical case of Ozzie and Harriet, a middle-income couple.

• Harriet is taxed at Ozzie's income tax rate when she enters the labor market, even if she only earns the minimum wage.
• And even if Ozzie has maxed out on his Social Security payroll taxes, Harriet must pay Social Security taxes on every dollar she earns (up to the same maximum), and she will get few, if any, extra benefits in return.
• Further, when all taxes and all costs are considered (including the cost of child care and other services she was previously providing as a homemaker), the second earner in a middle-income family can expect to keep only about 35 cents out of each dollar she earns.

The labor market does not provide women with the flexibility they need for the life-style most of us live in the 21^st Century.

Take Katherine for example. She is a divorced mother of two who has held several jobs in her career. Early on, most of her jobs did not provide retirement benefits. Of those that did, she was rarely there long enough to become "vested." Now in her late forties, Katherine is frantically trying to save as much as the law allows, but it's unlikely she will ever be able to save enough to provide true security when she retires.

That is just one of many examples of how our nation's employee benefit system needs to be reformed in order to meet the needs of women in the 21st Century. Consider:

• Women are more likely to work part-time so that they can look after children or elderly family members; therefore, women are less likely to qualify for employer-provided benefits.
• Women move from job to job and in and out of the labor market more frequently than men; therefore, women are more likely to be burdened by employee benefit programs that penalize job switching.

In addition, women raising children or caring for an ailing parent have other reasons to want flexibility in working hours. However, rigid labor laws may deny them the opportunity to attend a child's soccer game or take a parent to the doctor one week and make up the hours the following week. Our old-fashioned labor laws will not allow them to have that flexibility.

Women are not asking for a wave of new government entitlements, we just don't want to be penalized when we exercise our liberties. Women want to be free, under law and in the economy. There's no reason to leave laws or policies in place that impede our economic choices. But the truth is that many changes are needed to bring aging institutions into sync with the way people are living their lives in the 21st century.

At the NCPA, we  intend to be a voice for women, families, small businesses and entrepreneurs. We need your help. We need your leadership. Together, we can make a difference.

Let me pose some questions, then offer just a few suggestions. Tell me, tell us, if there is a better way to approach these challenges facing American women and their families.

• Why can't we have a fairer tax system for two-earner couples? At a minimum, both spouses should be able to file completely separate tax returns, if that helps them in terms of tax liability and economic equity.
• Why can't we have a flexible employee benefit system that makes it easier for dual-earner couples to obtain higher wages rather than unneeded, duplicate benefits, and for part-time workers to accept lower wages in return for more valuable health and retirement benefits?
• Why can't we have flexibility in labor law, making it easier for workers (especially parents with young children and caregivers for elderly parents) to choose alternatives to the traditional 40-hour work week?
• Why can't we have a level playing field under the tax law? People who save for retirement, purchase health insurance, long-term insurance and/or day care should receive just as much tax relief as people who obtain these benefits at work.
• Why can't we have portable health and retirement benefits, so that people are not penalized when they switch jobs?
• Why can't we have a completely new approach to the treatment of spouses under Social Security? Earnings sharing (where payroll tax contributions are divided like community property) could easily be applied to any new system of personal retirement accounts.
• Why can't we have a new approach to the taxation of Social Security benefits? If benefits must be taxed they should be taxed in a way that does not raise marginal tax rates and there should be no earnings penalty for seniors who work.
• Why can't we have the ability of everyone to protect assets by buying long-term care insurance, using Medicaid only for catastrophic costs?

While I'm at this, let me share some points on small business and entrepreneurship, reflections on problems facing all of us, women and men, working in smaller enterprises.

• Why can't small businesses have better access to affordable health insurance? As a small business owner, I want to provide health insurance for my employees. In fact, I want to provide Fortune 500 benefits to my employees. But I am not a Fortune 500 firm. Corporate America and Labor Unions can purchase health insurance across state lines in economy of scale and lower costs. Small business owners can't because they are not allowed.
• Why can't we bring an end to our government's discrimination against small businesses run by women or men?
• Why are small businesses not allowed to have access to affordable health insurance just like labor unions and corporate America?

I do not raise these issues to denounce our nation. I love my country. I can never adequately repay America for the opportunities she has given me. I raise the voice of reason, and for compassion and care for those who work, pay taxes and obey the law.

There are shrill voices in the media every day who talk about discrimination against women. But they never seem to talk about how women have been left behind by our outdated labor laws.

We plan to speak for those who have been left behind. We plan to provide the alternative voice, to amplify the voices of women for economic liberty, opportunity and freedom.

There's a lot of talk about new government programs or benefits to "help" women. But why not let women help themselves? Instead of growing government, with its notorious cookie-cutter approaches, what about simple solutions to empower women and working families to live their economic lives according to their personal needs and preferences?

To distill this again, our suggestions are:

• A fairer tax system for two-earner couples; at a minimum, both spouses should be able to file completely separate tax returns.
• A flexible employee benefit system that makes it easier for dual-earner couples to obtain higher wages rather than unneeded, duplicate benefits, and for part-time workers to accept lower wages in return for more valuable health and retirement benefits.
• Flexibility in labor law, making it easier for workers (especially parents with young children and caregivers for the elderly parents) to choose alternatives to the traditional 40-hour work week.
• A level playing field under tax law, so that people who save for retirement, purchase health insurance, long-term insurance, day care, etc., receive just as much tax relief as people who obtain these benefits at work.
• Portable health and retirement benefits, so that people are not penalized when they switch jobs.
• A completely new approach to the treatment of spouses under Social Security; earnings sharing (where payroll tax contributions are divided like community property) could easily be applied to any new system of personal retirement accounts.
• A new approach to the taxation of Social Security benefits: If benefits must be taxed they should be taxed in a way that does not raise marginal tax rates and there should be no earnings penalty for seniors who work.
• The ability of everyone to protect assets by buying long-term care insurance, using Medicaid only for catastrophic costs.

If it's possible to tie all these concerns together in one tidy package, it seems to me the primary focus should be on tax fairness, flexible benefits, portable benefits, flexible workplaces, and health care for small business.

As we move forward on these issues, we don't want to replace outmoded patriarchal models or assumptions with equally outmoded models or assumptions that big government approaches will make life better for American women.

Women want, and need, to be free.

America needs policies that work for people who work. American women - and all American workers — need flexibility, portability, and security. They deserve no less.

NCPA intends to be a voice for such policies. With your help, the voices of women entrepreneurs — mothers, wives, sisters, daughters, lovers, partners and friends — will reach into the homes of millions, to transform and re-form the policy impediments I've sketched here today.

• Our opinions, our solutions, our voices, need to be heard.
• Let's stay in the business of making a difference for women and their families.
• Let's change the world. Why can't we?

Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony. I look forward to working with the Committee as this debate continues.

This is a critical time in our nation. People are tired and weary with the war in Iraq. Citizens are tired of bickering, and those who divide the country with partisan rhetoric. It's only January, and people are already tired of the 2008 presidential campaign. In fact, only 20% of voters bothered to vote in last week's Michigan primary.

What can we do about it? Well, I am convinced that one person joining together with the voice of many can make a difference.

You are not here to hear about me, but perhaps telling you a little about myself will help you understand the particular passion I bring to the issues we are raising in today's briefing. Like each of you, I've tried to make a difference.

I have been in the business of making a difference all my life. Initially I didn't even realize it — having founded Terry Neese Personnel Services, which has been in business for 30 years, I focused my efforts on helping women find the type of career that would benefit their families. This often included helping women decide which career path to take as they gained knowledge — essentially helping them climb the ladder of success.

Building Women Impacting Public Policy (WIPP) into the largest women's advocacy association in the country kept me in the business of making a difference and changing the world for women, families, and small businesses.

In 2007, I founded a non-profit Institute which brought women business owners from Afghanistan to America to study, mentor, and return home to build their Democracy. Some years ago, I even ran for office in Oklahoma, to make a difference. 

I can't resist quoting observations from Oklahoma's favorite son, Will Rogers. I grew up in a poor farming community in Southwest Oklahoma and like Will, I have a tendency to be too honest, sometimes. Will was often critical of politicians. He could have been president, but he said (and I paraphrase), "I want to keep my honesty as long as I can." That doesn't apply to anyone here today, because I know we're all working to keep our honesty as long as we can!

So, let me talk honestly about the issues we face. As we have dialogue today and in the months ahead, I hope you'll talk the same way to me.

As a Distinguished Fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, I am focusing on real kitchen table issues impacting women, families, and small businesses. That's our agenda, simply put.

I can't cover all of our concerns today; but I can raise the major ones and ask for your help to make life better. In doing so, I know I stand on the shoulders of those who have come before me. Much of my analysis is adapted from the excellent book John Goodman did with Celeste Colgan and Kimberly Strassel in "Leaving Women Behind," published by NCPA and The Manhattan Institute in 2006. I'm sorry my friend John Goodman, who runs NCPA, is unable to join us today. 

And speaking of NCPA, all of us there appreciate the data collected regularly through the Current Population Survey at the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The time has come to examine why our government continues "leaving women behind." It is time to understand better how a variety of our institutions evolved in an age when most women did not work outside the home, how those institutions and policies have not kept pace with our modern world, and what we can do about that.

Most of these laws I am talking about were written in the 1930's. Women rarely worked outside the home. It merely describes the lives of most of us here to say that the single most important economic and sociological change in our society in the past 60 years has been the entry of women into the labor market:

• Between 1950 and 2000 the labor force participation rate of women between 25 and 55 years of age more than doubled; today, more than 75 percent of these women are in the labor market.
• Less than 12 percent of mothers with children under 6 were in the labor force in 1950; today, more than 60 percent are working.

These changes have had a major impact on family life. For example:

• In 1940, two-thirds of all working households were one wage-earner and a stay-at-home spouse; today about one in four households fit that pattern.
• Dual-earner families - with both spouses in the labor market - now constitute slightly more than half of all married couples.

Despite these remarkable changes, public policy and major institutions have never kept pace.  Tax law, labor law and a host of other institutions are still designed from top-to-bottom for an Ozzie and Harriet lifestyle. I don't say this to marginalize the life many of our grandparents and parents lived. It's merely a direct observation.

Our major economic institutions - including tax law, labor law, and employee benefits law, as well as Social Security, and retirement policies - reward families with a full-time worker and a stay-at-home spouse and by comparison punish every other arrangement.

Women who work for modest wages outside the home still pay effective tax rates higher than Bill Gates! Consider that hypothetical case of Ozzie and Harriet, our middle-income couple. Here's what happens when Harriet enters the labor market:

• Even if she earns only the minimum wage, she is taxed at Ozzie's income tax rate. And even if Ozzie has maxed out on his Social Security payroll taxes, Harriet must pay Social Security taxes on every dollar she earns (up to the same maximum).
• Since Harriet is entitled to half of Ozzie's Social Security benefit (and gets 100 percent after his death) whether she works or not, odds are that she will get little, if any, benefit from the payroll taxes she pays.
• When all taxes and all costs are considered (including the cost of child care and other services she was previously providing as a homemaker), the second earner in a middle-income family can expect to keep only about 35 cents out of each dollar she earns.

On paper, our elderly entitlement programs treat everyone the same. But the ages of husbands and wives are often not the same.

• At age 65, Ozzie is eligible for Medicare; but Harriet is not eligible until she also reaches 65. If the couple was relying on Ozzie's employer-provided health insurance before his retirement, they must now find higher-priced, individual insurance for Harriet (and pay for it with after-tax dollars).
• At age 62, Harriet can get early Social Security retirement benefits. But if she works part-time (say, to help pay health insurance premiums), the withdrawal of Social Security benefits and the Social Security benefits tax can combine with other taxes to take 60¢, 70¢ or 80¢ of every dollar she earns!

Since Medicare does not cover most long-term care, seniors must provide for their own needs, or exhaust their assets and qualify for Medicaid. Since women are more than twice as likely as men to experience a long stint in a nursing home, this really is a "women's issue." Yet public policies are hardly accommodating.

• Like other employee benefits, there is virtually no legal restriction on the ability of people to acquire long-term care insurance with pretax dollars at work; for people who must buy insurance outside the workplace, however, the tax breaks are stingier.
• Although four states allow seniors to protect assets against Medicaid by buying insurance, Congress has prevented similar arrangements in the other 46 states.

In sum, the labor market does not provide women with the flexibility they need for the life-style most of us live in the 21^st Century.

Our institutions were not only designed for the full-time worker with a stay-at-home spouse, employers and employees find it difficult to make any other arrangement.

• Because of rigid tax laws and employee benefits laws, if Ozzie and Harriet both work full-time they will likely receive duplicate, unnecessary sets of benefits. Harriet will be unable to acquire higher wages in return for foregoing health and pension benefits she acquires through Ozzie's employer.

Let's leave poor Harriet for a moment and take Katherine for another example. She is a divorced mother of two who has held several jobs in her career. Early on, most of her jobs did not provide retirement benefits. Of those that did, she was rarely there long enough to become "vested." Now in her late forties, Katherine is frantically trying to save as much as the law allows, but it's unlikely she will ever be able to save enough to provide true security when she retires.

Surely, our nation's employee benefit system needs to be reformed in order to meet the needs of women in the 21st Century. Consider:

• Women are more likely to work part-time so that they can look after children or elderly family members; therefore, women are less likely to qualify for employer-provided benefits.
• Women move from job to job and in and out of the labor market more frequently than men; therefore, women are more likely to be burdened by employee benefit programs that penalize job switching.

In addition, women raising children or caring for an ailing parent have other reasons to want flexibility in working hours. However, rigid labor laws may deny them the opportunity to attend a child's soccer game or take a parent to the doctor one week and make up the hours the following week. Our old-fashioned labor laws will not allow them to have that flexibility.

Women are not asking for a wave of new government entitlements, we just don't want to be penalized when we exercise our liberties. Women want to be free, under law and in the economy. There's no reason to leave laws or policies in place that impede our economic choices. But the truth is that many changes are needed to bring aging institutions into sync with the way people are living their lives in the 21st century.

At the NCPA, we  intend to be a voice for women, families, and small businesses. We need your help. We need your leadership. Together, we can make a difference.

Let me pose some questions, then offer just a few suggestions. As I do so, please know that I realize you are the policy-makers. Tell me, tell us, if we're "off-pitch" or if there are better ways to approach these challenges facing American women and their families.

• Why can't we have a fairer tax system for two-earner couples? At a minimum, both spouses should be able to file completely separate tax returns, if that helps them in terms of tax liability and economic equity.
• Why can't we have a flexible employee benefit system that makes it easier for dual-earner couples to obtain higher wages rather than unneeded, duplicate benefits, and for part-time workers to accept lower wages in return for more valuable health and retirement benefits?
• Why can't we have flexibility in labor law, making it easier for workers (especially parents with young children and caregivers for elderly parents) to choose alternatives to the traditional 40-hour work week?
• Why can't we have a level playing field under the tax law? People who save for retirement, purchase health insurance, long-term insurance and/or day care should receive just as much tax relief as people who obtain these benefits at work.
• Why can't we have portable health and retirement benefits, so that people are not penalized when they switch jobs?
• Why can't we have a completely new approach to the treatment of spouses under Social Security? Earnings sharing (where payroll tax contributions are divided like community property) could easily be applied to any new system of personal retirement accounts.
• Why can't we have a new approach to the taxation of Social Security benefits? If benefits must be taxed they should be taxed in a way that does not raise marginal tax rates and there should be no earnings penalty for seniors who work.
• Why can't everyone protect assets by buying long-term care insurance, using Medicaid only for catastrophic costs?

While I'm at this, let me ask similar questions about the problems facing all of us, women and men, who work in smaller enterprises.

• Why can't small businesses have better access to affordable health insurance? As a small business owner, I want to provide health insurance for my employees. In fact, I want to provide Fortune 500 benefits to my employees. But I am not a Fortune 500 firm. Corporate America and Labor Unions can purchase health insurance across state lines in economy of scale and lower costs. Small business owners can't because they are not allowed.
• Why can't we bring an end to our government's discrimination against small businesses run by women or men?
• Why can't we allow are small businesses access to affordable health insurance just like labor unions and corporate America?

I do not raise these issues to denounce our nation. I love my country. I can never adequately repay America for the opportunities she has given me. I raise the voice of reason, compassion and care for those who work, pay taxes and obey the law.

There are shrill voices in the media every day who talk about discrimination against women. But they never seem to talk about how women have been left behind by our outdated labor laws.

We plan to speak for those who have been left behind. We plan to provide the alternative voice, to amplify the voices of women for economic liberty, opportunity and freedom.

Right now, there's a lot of talk about new government programs or benefits to "help" women. But why not let women help themselves? Instead of growing government, with its notorious cookie-cutter approaches, what about simple solutions to empower women and working families to live their economic lives according to their personal needs and preferences?

To distill this again, our suggestions are:

• A fairer tax system for two-earner couples; spouses should be allowed to file separately without economic penalty. Let's end the marriage penalty in fact, not in fantasy.
• A flexible employee benefit system that makes it easier for dual-earner couples to obtain higher wages rather than unneeded, duplicate benefits, and for part-time workers to accept lower wages in return for more valuable health and retirement benefits.
• Flexibility in labor law, making it easier for workers (especially parents with young children and caregivers for the elderly parents) to choose alternatives to the traditional 40-hour work week.
• A level playing field under tax law, so that people who save for retirement, purchase health insurance, long-term insurance, day care, etc., receive just as much tax relief as people who obtain these benefits at work.
• Portable health and retirement benefits, so that people are not penalized when they switch jobs.
• A completely new approach to the treatment of spouses under Social Security; earnings sharing (where payroll tax contributions are divided like community property) could easily be applied to any new system of personal retirement accounts.
• A new approach to the taxation of Social Security benefits: If benefits must be taxed they should be taxed in a way that does not raise marginal tax rates and there should be no earnings penalty for seniors who work.
• The ability of everyone to protect assets by buying long-term care insurance, using Medicaid only for catastrophic costs.

If it's possible to tie all these concerns together in one tidy package, it seems to me the primary focus should be on tax fairness, flexible benefits, portable benefits, flexible workplaces, and health care for small business.

As we move forward on these issues, we don't want to replace outmoded patriarchal models or assumptions with equally outmoded models or assumptions that big government approaches will make life better for American women.

Women want, and need, to be free.

America needs policies that work for people who work. American women - and all American workers — need flexibility, portability, and security. They deserve no less.

NCPA intends to be a voice for such policies. With your help, the voices of women entrepreneurs — mothers, wives, sisters, daughters, significant others, partners and friends — will reach into the homes of millions, to transform and re-form the policy impediments I've sketched here today.

Our opinions, our solutions, our voices, need to be heard.

Let's stay in the business of making a difference for women and their families.

Let's change the world. Why can't we?